You are on page 1of 1

MILLER v.

MARDO
FACTS:
Manuel Gonzales filed a complaint against Bill Miller with the Regional Office No. 3 of the Department of
Labor (Manila). Miller is the owner and manager of Miller Motors, and Gonzales is claiming to be a driver of Miller
from December 1, 1956 to October 31, 1957, on which latter date he was allegedly arbitrarily dismissed, without
being paid separation pay. Miller filed with the CFI of Baguio a petition praying for judgment prohibiting Chief
Hearing Officer Atanacio Mardo from proceeding with the case, on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to hear
and decide the subject matter of the complaint. Miller questions the validity of Reorganization Plan No. 20-A,
prepared and submitted by the Government Survey and Reorganization Commission under the authority of R.A. No.
997, as amended by R.A. No. 1241, insofar as it confers jurisdiction to the Regional Offices of the Department of
Labor created in said Plan to decide claims of laborers for wages, overtime and separation pay, etc.
Under , Reorganization Plan No. 20-A, the regional offices of the Department of Labor have been given
original and exclusive jurisdiction over:
(a) all cases falling under the Workmen's Compensation law;
(b) all cases affecting money claims arising from violations of labor standards on working conditions, unpaid wages,
underpayment, overtime, separation pay and maternity leave of employees and laborers; and
(c) all cases for unpaid wages, overtime, separation pay, vacation pay and payment for medical services of domestic
help
Prior to the effectivity of Reorganization Plan No. 20-A, the Department of Labor, except the Workmen's
Compensation Commission, with respect to claims for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation law, had
no compulsory power to settle cases under (b) and (c) above. R.A. No. 1241, amending Section 4 of Republic Act
997, which created the Government Survey and Reorganization Commission, empowered the latter to abolish
departments, offices, agencies, or functions which may not be necessary, or create those which way be necessary for
the efficient conduct of the government service, activities, and functions.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Reorganization Plan No. 20-A is invalid insofar as it confers judicial power to the Regional
Offices over cases other than those falling under the Workmen's Compensation on Law
HELD:
Yes, the functions referred to in R.A. No. 1241 which could thus be created, refer merely to administrative,
not judicial functions. The Government Survey and Reorganization Commission was created to carry out the
reorganization of the Executive Branch of the National Government and did not include the creation of courts.
The legislature may confer on administrative boards or bodies quasi-judicial powers involving the exercise
of judgment and discretion, as incident to the performance of administrative functions. But in so doing, the
legislature must state its intention in express terms that would leave no doubt, as even such quasi-judicial
prerogatives must be limited, if they are to be valid, only to those incidental to or in connection with the
performance of jurisdiction over a matter exclusively vested in the courts. If a statute itself actually passed by the
Congress must be clear in its terms when clothing administrative bodies with quasi-judicial functions, then certainly
such conferment can not be implied from a mere grant of power to a body such as the Government Survey and
Reorganization Commission to create "functions" in connection with the reorganization of the Executive Branch of
the Government.

You might also like